[mythtv-users] Storing recordings on network share
belcampo at zonnet.nl
Sat Sep 24 17:37:14 UTC 2011
On 09/23/2011 06:45 PM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:48 AM, belcampo <belcampo at zonnet.nl
> <mailto:belcampo at zonnet.nl>> wrote:
> What are we talking about, in terms of large buffers, I mean. Even 6
> concurrent HD-streams of probably <= 20Mb/s only generate 120Mb/s
> 15MB/s, with todays drives easily being capable of > 80MB/s.
> Not under high random I/O load, which is what we get with Myth when
> dealing with multiple recordings and such.
If you use xfs with with allocsize=1024M, one can easy avoid most of the
randomness of videofile-writes and thereby avoiding allmost if not all
of the mentioned troubles.
> Modern drives, even many SDDs, can't sustain high random I/O loads at
> even close to 80MB/s. Not unless you go with high-IOPS disks, then you
> start talking real money. Nothing you would waste on recording TV. The
> streaming I/O capacity of a drive is meaningless to us, as we never
> use it. On a mechanical HDD, seek time is close to 10ms, that's 10ms
> that you can't do I/O. Start doing a bunch of those, and you start
> seeing slowdowns. Every block you write, particularly when sync() is
> being called, means you seek to write it, then seek to the filesystem
> structures and update those, then seek to do it again.. you quickly
> get to where you're seeking more than reading/writing. That's where
> the recommendation comes from to keep the database and the recordings
> separated, the database can issue a LOT of seek calls.
> And we're dealing with a stream here. A file copy can just wait to
> read the next bit in, if we don't write fast enough, we corrupt the
> recording. The codecs can fix some of that, but you drop enough data
> and you can't really enjoy the recording as it will be all pixelated
> or choppy.
> For just one example, look at the random I/O test at the bottom of
> this article:
> From the article:
> "Random read/write performance is abysmal. You can't really make out
> the numbers here but that's 0.7MB/s for reads and 0.3MB/s for writes
> compared to 40MB/s+ for the SSDs. It's the poor random access
> performance that ultimately prevents the Momentus XT from feeling like
> an SSD most of the time."
> That's a far rougher test than we would hit our drives with, but it
> shows the huge performance drop from random I/O. Even the SSDs in
> their test only got to 40MB/s.
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users at mythtv.org
More information about the mythtv-users